See No Jihad: U.S. Still Treating Fort Hood Jihadis as Criminals

Fort Hood jihad mass murderer Major Nidal Malik Hasan was in the news again last week, when he was found in contempt of court for the third time and fined $3,000 for refusing to shave his beard. (He can afford it; he is still receiving his salary from the U.S. military.) Also last week, a man who considers Hasan his hero and role model, Army soldier Naser Abdo, received a life sentence for attempting to repeat Hasan’s murderous attack at Fort Hood. Both cases demonstrate, in different ways, the abject failure of government and law enforcement officials to deal adequately with the challenge of Islamic jihad terrorism.

The judge who found Hasan in contempt again and fined him is treating the former Army psychiatrist as if he were a delinquent American soldier, which in a technical sense he is. But Hasan’s beard is not just facial hair; it is a statement. It is his assertion that he is not an American at all, but a Muslim and a jihadist, someone who regards America as an evil enemy, the “Great Satan” indeed — an enemy that he believes must be fought against as a matter of divine principle. Hasan’s beard is his silent declaration that he is an enemy combatant, and that it is ludicrous to try him as if he were in any meaningful sense an American soldier who has even the slightest degree of interest in following any of the rules of the U.S. military. And it is.

Hasan’s beard and the reaction to it demonstrate the official unwillingness to face the reality of the Islamic jihad against the United States. They are another manifestation of the official determination to pretend that jihad does not exist. Finding Hasan in contempt of court for his beard is as wrongheaded as classifying his jihad attack as “workplace violence,” and stems from the same wellsprings. Hasan is not an American soldier at all in any genuine sense, and should not be tried simply as if he were a military officer who committed a crime. But to do otherwise would be to acknowledge the existence of the jihad that officials are determined to ignore.

Naser Abdo’s life sentence, meanwhile, recalls the fact that he was granted conscientious objector status and discharged from the Army in 2010: he had not wanted to go to Afghanistan to fight against his fellow Muslims, and was widely presented in the media at the time as a thoughtful man of peace. He played the role to the hilt, saying that once discharged he wanted to combat “Islamophobia” and “to try and put a good positive spin out there that Islam is a good, peaceful religion. We’re not all terrorists, you know?”

After saying this, Abdo quickly set out to demonstrate the riskiness of the determination on the part of the government, law enforcement, and mainstream media to find and spotlight “moderate Muslims”: he began plotting to construct bombs and detonate them in a crowded restaurant full of soldiers from Fort Hood. Abdo defiantly admitted his guilt in court, and even cried out “Nidal Hasan Fort Hood 2009.” He referred to Hasan as “my brother” and spoke of his “efforts to outdo him.”

Here is a big story that has fallen under the radar.
I hope someone has been following the Burgas, Bulgaria terrorist bus bombing of Israeli tourists from the start because a major cover up has been in progress since day 1.
Where is the U.S. Passport they said they retrieved along with the fake Michigan drivers license ? (now changed with a different face and different address)

http://www.timesofisrael.com/photo-of-second-man-involved-in-burgas-bombing-released/
A big cover up going on here .
The original (last) fake Michigan drivers license they showed us here had (La.) Lousiana address not the Michigan address and the photo was of a different person with red hair.
Also at the beginning they said they had a U.S. Passport along with the fake Michigan drivers license.
Since that first day the Passport has disappeared.

I believe the reason we are being fed lies and dis-information is because it would embarrass President Obama if word got out that he was an American convert to Hezbollah Islam from the Dearborn, Michigan area where Hezbollah operate openly and freely.

These intelligence,dis-information people have either gotten really stupid or they think they can fool the public this easily ?

The glory, and sometimes the tragedy, of the Army is that ALL of the uniformed men and women who make it up must obey all lawful orders, even if it means grave bodily danger. I can’t believe the Army, if left to go its own way, would be responsible for mislabeling Hasan’s acts as workplace violence. That decision has librul civilian government official written all over it.

Mr. Spencer, thoughts directed to you for a future discussion: Hassam and Abdo are clearly basing their actions upon their jihadist interpretation of Islam. I leave aside any view as to what “core” Islam might mean, though not the role “Islam” might play in motivating acts of violence — and such religious motivation (or its exclusion) is of essence in the current trial you have discussed. The accused cannot be ruled guilty in the first degree without having established conscious motivation. If the islamic beliefs are denied, the motivational factor must be slim, perhaps, occupational overwork??? I would like to give a little background to the question that I am laboriously trying to formulate correctly.

Recently in Germany a Rita Breuer has published a book “In the Name of Allah?” where in she shows that Christians are persecuted in ALL societies where the majority consists of Muslims. The correlation noted is, alas, an empirical fact!!! The woman put a question mark after “in the name of Allah” and not an exclamation mark because she did not wish to deal with the essence question, i.e.: Does Islam in its essence promote violence or are the “in-the-name-of-Allah” persecuters MISunderstanding the “peaceful” nature of Islam? It is this empirical correlaqtion that disturbs Breuer (she is victim to political correctness a la Germany). NEVERTHELESS, Breuer does NOT in anyway exclude “Allah” as a motivating factor for consciously undertaken acts of persecution worldwide (or, I add, in the case of Major Hassan, the killing of fellow soldiers evinces a clear “in-the-name-of-Allah” motivation). This German researcher just does not want to be confronted with the question. What relevance does this have to the current (mis)trial of Major Hassan in specific and to the refusal in general by the current administration to allow religious, viz., islamic beliefs to be viewed as a potential source of motivation for acts hostile to America, indeed, to the West, not to speak of Israel.

Empirical facts: 1) Correlation between persecutional violence and Muslim societies. 2) The conscious use of “in-the-name-of-Allah” as a justification for the motivation to persecute. 3) The Obama adminsitration (e.g., Obama himself and H. Clinton with her Muslim advisor) refuses any connection being made between “Allah” motivation and acts of violence or, in more general terms, for evaluation inside and outside the US concerning, say, Muslim Brotherhood intentions. In other words, the correlation is denied any causal connection.

Finally, I come to the moment of truth, i.e., to the point where my question should assume precise form–and it does not, in part because it induces me to think thoughts about Obama that I do not wish to do. Although still clumbsy, I ask: Just what is MOTIVATING Obama and his administration, particularly H. Clinton, to enshrine the “Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace” as a directive principle as a general directive for his governmental acts?

I will leave the question in the simplified form just given. I must admit that I at times wonder about just what constitutes the religious proclivities of Obama in his heart of hearts. I am reminded of the pro-Soviet (or more) Harry Hopkins as he advised FDR into blindness and thereby induced that president to accept the expansionist demands of Stalin. Yes, I doubt the loyalty of Hopkins. He was not the president, just the advisor to a president uniformed about the nature of Soviet communism. The thought that I do not wish to think would be: “Perhaps, Obama is a islamic Harry Hopkins who has become president?!” Various articles in PJ Media and in Pundicity, not to mention in FrontPage and in your Jihad Watch, spell out a clear and present danger in islamic motivation and, well, Obama seems to be so blind that I have begun to doubt that he is blind, rather that he sees things very clearly, only in a manner favorable of Islam, at least, of the
Muslim Brotherhood type. Am I having so-called “McCarthy-ite” phantasies or am I seeing some truth, however darkly through tainted glass?

It is political appeasement of Muslims–avoidance behavior, which is clearly insane in a life-and-death situation (as jihadi terrorists make it now). This is a large part of why I call them the “Insane Left”, and I lump the Muslim fundamentalists (those who BELIEVE, unquestioningly, in the hideous Koran, which is filled with the rationalizations of Mohammed, to justify his criminal behavior) together with the American political Left, as equally insane.

Your reference to the Left or Muslim fundamentalistsw as “insane” is a derogatory appellation with which I can evaluatively agree. However, “insane” per se gives me no cognitive information. All the conversations with Bin Laden that I have heard indicate that he was quite “sane”, i.e., he had a world-view, religious knowledge, derived moral duties and, in addition, he planned quite rationally a terror act of enormous proportions. What I would like to read discussed are the “cognitive” views of Obama that lead him to pursue an apparently consistent foreign policy, particularly with regards to the Muslim Brotherhood. I see consistency in Obama’s activities–a consistency that leads me to wonder about his prime religous proclivities (not necessarily “dogmatic” beliefs). Critics such a Spencer (not to mention the articles by Andrew McCarthy) present “core” Islam as a coherent doctrine that produces motivation for acts of violence, etc. I see nothing in “Pres.” Morsi that suggests that he is psychiatrically insane (however much my personal evaluation of him might use such a term as a sort of insultory aspersion), rather that he is behaving in a manner that corresponds to his Brotherhood Islam. If this thesis is accepted and if it appears that Obama is “consistently” accomodating the estabilishment and furtherance of said Brotherhood Islam in Egypt and denies Muslim persecution as religiously motivated (rather due to social repression, etc. as in Niger), THEN the question forces itself upon my attempts to interpret Obama’s “consistencies”. And what I am tempted to believe might get me devalued as being a “Joe McCarthy-ite”. I would like to read by Spencer and/or other experts of PJ Media an evaluation of Obama’s cognitive stance. (I note that Ed. Klein’s “The Amateur” certainly throws light on Obama or the PJ Media article on Obama’s mentor, Frank Davis and Kurtz’s book, etc.) I suppose that I am looking for an intellectual biography of Obama so that I can understand apparently orderly behavior as a reflection of ….?)

Read what W. F. Buckley had to say about picking the correct word. I extend that to the correct words. Words should be organized so that they communicate to the person addressed. Those addressed by my words were Spencer or any writer at PJ Media. Within the context of equals, my words constitute a groping response to Spencer’s article (and those of Andrew McCathy–who has been attacked viciously and others). I am seeking information concerning the “truths” held dear by Obama (hopefully my reformulation is “moronic” enough for a “simple” understanding–for afterall I am responding to simple minds) such that my hermenuetics does not lead me to propose allegations about the bearer of said veritas. If my mode of amplifying my concerns prepatory to my inquisitional goals surpass your capacity to plumb their meaning, the fault lies with you and not me. Indeed, it appears that you were “moronic” to read through the text, particularly one by a “moron”. It is asserted that I am a “moron”. Well a “moron”, by dictionary definiton, possesses an IQ of 50 to 70. Which alternative is closer to such cognitional power: 1. my comments written or 2. your evident inability to comprehend them???

I do not understand why blotto and phantasmal must exhibit their anti-intellectualism to such a degree that my very intelligence must be insulted. Insults directed at the policies of Obama, etc., are understandable as emotinal outlets, though they are informationally without value. And it is precisely information concerning which I am seeking cognizance. In order to obtain said knowledge, needed if I wish to form an objective judgment about the motivational structure of Obama, I must develop my inquiry such that I am understandable to an intellectual such as Spencer or others of non-simple minded powers of intelligence and education. So, my two bearers of disparagement, why were you so moronic as to read my words? I expect no answer nor want one. I do hope that courteousy my reign and I be allowed to comment in a manner congenial to me.

It’s much worse than you are saying.
Birds of a feather always flock together and decadent,perverted America is given over to (EVIL) and is on the same page as Satanic Islam.

In general you are soft on the diabolical agenda of the globalists who have long ago taken over America.
Look how easily President Bush duped his cheering section for 8 years while holding hands with Saudi lover King Abdullah and moved their agenda forward without any resistance from them and ALWAYS restrained Israel.
The US press is in bed and fornicating with this ISLAM devil.
One example of 1,000′s
Look at how they have covered up and protected Muslim US Army Major Nidal Hassan for killing 13 fellow army soldiers and wounding 33 others ?
The U.S. government gave him a promotion to Major after they knew he was and extremist Islamic terrorist waiting to make his move.

It is a matter of individual judgment, how large a loop one can throw over the subject, to properly identify it and its roots, to get at the heart of it. You are taking a medium-sized loop, putting it in the terms of a globalist agenda. The author here is making a smaller (tighter) loop, stressing the immediate Islamic jihadi threat. My own research has made me aware of a human-history-long loop — the threat of religiously held dogma, especially fearful dogma — which addresses the most fundamental threat, which has hardened individual hearts and minds, derailed societies, and crumbled whole empires throughout the course of human history. And it can enlighten the general theme, as I see it, of the present point in time, which I have come to call the “War of the Insane Left” (which includes the Left’s delusions about Obamacare and so-called global warming, as well as their frequently-hysterical fear and anger towards Republicans now).

You might like this to help you understand why the US Government is so cozy in bed with the Saudi’s,always giving them a pass while bullying the tiny nation of Israel for everything when not restraining them against the DEATH CULT.
I took the liberty of correcting the Saudi cleric and untwisting his rant.

‘The role and rule of Islam is to wreak destruction, to wage wars, and to practice deception and extortion, and we’re doing a pretty darn good job od this around the globe but especially in Syria now.’
‘Look at how we have destroyed Somalia and how we keep blowing up fellow Muslims in Iraq,Pakistan and Afghanistan especially as they pray in our Mosques. We lie for our god the father of lies and blame the Joos,and this works well for us in destroying everything living’,Salman al-Odeh said.

Why is Major Nidal Malik Hasan still alive? What is this guy’s defense going to be? There is no dispute over the fact that he committed the mass murders, so what is there really to debate? That he was insane? Well, there is that, but then again he seemed pretty sane to the US Army, his employer, right up to the point where he killed all those people. Worse, this guy was supposed to be a mental health professional, which tells you A LOT about how the Army regulates its own doctors, especially Muslim ones.

Nope. This man is nothing but a mass murderer who is a religious fanatic driven by hatred for anything non-Muslim. The sooner he is executed by the Army, the better. That is, of course, assuming the Army has the courage to execute this vermin.

Precisely! — “Major” Hasan’s obvious and admitted adherence to an enemy in time of war has at once voided his citizenship (for high treason), voided his standing as a lawful member of our armed forces, and, for failing to wear a proper combatant’s uniform, deprived him of any legal combatant “protections” under the Geneva convention.

His being accorded even a “pro forma” trial prior to hanging is in itself an “act of grace” which he has not merited — but, one which might be useful in publicly stating the obvious.

His sanity is not a proper issue. His mental competence to stand “trial” is not an issue. His (religious) motivation(s) are non-issues. The only remaining issues are bureaucratic: establishment of facts for the record and the execution date. We’re being much too nice to this scum.

Which is a lot more than any of our guys would have received from “his friends”!

“Fort Hood jihad mass murderer Major Nidal Malik Hasan”
Mr. Spencer: It will help to omit the title of “Major” when we speak of Nidal Hasan. I know this is small in comparison, but our words matter. Referring to him as “Major” helps him to be legitimate and as you wrote he is not “in any meaningful since an American soldier.”

Our only other option, besides treating him as a criminal, would be to treat him as an enemy combatant.
But it seems to me that this would be a bad idea. For several reasons.
First, it would be acknowledging some sort of “Jihadist Army”. Besides the fact that no such thing exists (they are no where near that organized or unified) it would be giving them too great a level of legitimacy.
Second, where would we draw the line? Would we then have to treat the various Christian terrorists we’ve encountered over the last few decades as prisoners of war?
Third, it would contribute to the (all too common) lumping together of all Muslims as “the enemy”. Which ignores the South East Asian nations (notably Malaysia and Indonesia, the most populace primarily Islamic nation in the world), and which are actively combating radicalization and the “great satan” concept (which is a Persian term, by the way – even the Arabs don’t use it).
In short, treating this criminal any other way would be causing more problems than it would resolve.

BS — all the way! — In the case of this creep, civilian criminal law is utterly inapplicable.

There is the third alternative -see comment to @7- which is to treat him as an undocumented, out of uniform, enemy combatant, which is what he became by his own design, preparation, and execution of that atrocity.

The particular al-quaeda/jihadi group he adhered to, if any, becomes irrelevant in light of his own preparatory statements and verbal utterances while committing the deed. At that very instant he became THEIR combatant, though unofficially and out of uniform. That makes him a partisan/spy, to be treated as such without any further prejudice to any of OUR official or semi-official stances.

All the rest has been window-dressing. I am particularly appalled at reading that he continues to be paid his salary, or that the court considers his unshaven appearance as sufficiently disruptive to delay proceeding, while fining him for “contempt”. He clearly stated his everlasting contempt for that court (and us) on the day he murdered 13 of his former comrades in arms.

Let him keep his silly beard. Should it get in the way of the hangman’s properly setting the noose, that guy will know what to do about it. Let’s stop concocting rationalizations for pussy-footing around with this kind of garbage. (Hell, speaking legally, Saddam Hussein had more standing than this creep!) He needs to be executed ASAP and his name expunged forever from the rolls of our loyal fighting men and women! We OWE that to them, and to the families of those whom he murdered. “Workplace violence”, my foot! How abysmally wretched, and cowardly PC, to label it thus!

Mmm, but we’d still be giving him far too much recognition. If we certify him as an “enemy combatant, out of uniform” under the Hague code, we’d be acknowledging officially that any organization he belongs to is legitimate and representative.
By treating him as just another nutjob we deny him the one thing he wants most – legitimacy.

BS — Already we have given him 1000 times more “legitimacy” than he merits. — 3 years of “deciding” what to do with him. — Every day has been one too many.

Who CARES to which org. he ended up adhering, officially, or unofficially; or what their “standing”, official, or unofficial. Decisive (and solely deciding the case) was his treacherous act in THEIR name, whether or not they ordered it, approved it, or claim or receive “credit” for it. His execution will neither raise, nor diminish, their “standing” in any way, merely his own: he’ll be a dead “no name”, as he deserves to be.

And, we’ll have made the point, how ruthless we can and will be whenever the occasion warrants it.

It’s all backwards: The issue should be the conduct of the guy who shot, killed and wounded many while shouting “Allahu Akbar!”. And that’s what it would be if we didn’t have to first question of the competence and the allegiance of those who are in charge of our national security. The guy had added “SOA” (Soldier Of Allah) on his business card, and given a powerpoint presentation of his duty to prosecute jihad.

A US military officer shooting other US military personnel while on duty, and we don’t know what to do about if? This reminds me of the OJ Simpson debacle, when the nail shattered the hammer because it was a minority nail! We have a lot of growing up to do. At this juncture we are all preoccupied on what to do about our fiscal and economic distress, but at some point we better face the even more fundamental questions of national pride, cultural authenticity, and national security. We do pay for a huge and expensive DHS and what are getting for it?

I hope we get fix this mess before it’s too late. It’s not going to be quick and easy: We will even need to confront the rot within our own state department, who cannot even do the vetting right before dispensing security clearances!

Headline in the Christian Science Monitor, April 2012:
Ron Paul: Most Americans agree with him on Afghanistan pullout

Reports CSM:

“But it is the war that’s gone on for more than 10 years in Afghanistan – a war that is not going particularly well and that has seen a series of incidents where supposed Afghan allies have killed US service personnel – where the public’s agreement with Paul seems most evident.

“Support for the war in Afghanistan has dropped sharply among both Republicans and Democrats,” the New York Times reported this past week.

The assertion is based on the latest New York Times/CBS poll, which finds that opposition to the war jumped from 53 percent four months ago to 69 percent today.

Weariness with the war crosses party lines. While Republicans are more inclined to support the war, 60 percent say the war is going very or somewhat badly, and only about 30 percent of Republicans surveyed said the US should stay in Afghanistan.

Other polls show similar tracking.

Last June, Americans were evenly split on US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, according to a Pew Research Center survey. Today, Pew finds the withdraw-stay split to be 57-35 percent.

Gallup finds Americans divided 2-to-1 regarding troop withdrawal. Half of those surveyed want an accelerated withdrawal while just 24 percent say the US should stick to its current 2014 timetable.

In a floor speech in the House of Representatives recently, Paul warned that if the US isn’t out of Afghanistan by the end of the year, “we’ll be there for another decade.”

“The American people are now with us,” he said, and on that point he’s increasingly correct.”